The Craft of Scene Writing Read online

  Let’s say you are writing an action-comedy like Mr. & Mrs. Smith, in which two lovers are also enemies. They jump out of a helicopter and get their parachutes tangled up but survive because a gazebo breaks their fall. One of them says, “Do you still hate me?” and the response is “I do.” Your intention was to create a double entendre of “I do” because of its association with wedding vows. The text is “I hate you,” but the subtext is “I love you and will be with you forever.”

  What if your spouse is the only one who gets the joke? Are you going to explain it away in the script, essentially killing the punch line? Sit with the situation and apply your conscious mind to what you wrote subconsciously. Can you create the necessary setup for the audience to understand it?

  Maybe your spouse understood it because you were married under a gazebo. A gazebo can be a romantic setting for a wedding, so decorate your location with white ribbons and flowers. In fact, let’s just make it a wedding that is in progress. Depending on the tone, let them land in the cake. Do you need a wide-eyed preacher to have just finished the line, “Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?” Probably overkill, maybe not.

  Note that this is different from explaining the joke. It is setting up context. The irony of the romantic and harmonious images provides a sharp contrast to their animosity, while also effortlessly clarifying the double entendre of the “I do.”

  A More Subtle Scene

  When the stakes are life and death, it might seem easier to create strong clear-cut beats. Even in scenes set in the modern “real world,” however, the goal is to find beats that have personal meaning to the characters. Then you can find dialogue that captures a beat’s intent or subtext.

  Let’s look at a scene from Erin Brockovich. Erin (Julia Roberts) was fired by her boss, Ed (Albert Finney), because while she was out of the office doing research on a case, he assumed she was shirking her responsibilities. When one of the scientists she was interviewing contacts Ed, he seeks out Erin. He wants to get information from her and possibly share information with her—which all sounds pretty boring. However, it’s anything but.

  Consider this foreshadowing for Chapter 5, “Exposition.” Beats should never be flat and unemotional, like “telling information” or “sharing facts.” None of the lines in this scene convey information for information’s sake. Notice the dialogue is personal, and every time a piece of information is given, it’s in service of a strong action and clear beat.

  Scene Analysis:

  Erin Brockovich

  The DOORBELL rings. Erin swoops in and picks up Beth.

  ERIN

  Come on, baby. Maybe that’s Ed McMahon.

  (This is a setup for her next line. At the time, Ed McMahon was featured on television commercials awarding millions of dollars to sweepstakes winners. This is the equivalent of hoping to win the lottery, which underscores her financial woes.)

  INT. ERIN’S HOUSE - FRONT DOOR - DAY

  Erin carries Beth over to the front door, spies through the peephole, and sees Ed standing there. She opens the door.

  ERIN

  Wrong Ed.

  (With the setup, this communicates “F**k you” or “I don’t want to see you.” It insults him, and there is the added fun of confusing him. It’s active and personal.)

  (Ed looks confused)

  What are you doing here?

  (Questions, interrogates, pushes away.)

  ED

  I got an interesting call this afternoon. It was from a Doctor Frankel from UCLA.

  (Notice that the details of the conversation are not revealed, which serves two craft purposes. First, it doesn’t bog the scene down with boring information. “Relaying a fact” and “giving information” are nonbeats. Secondly, the omission is what allows it to function. The beat is luring Erin, intriguing her, or piquing her curiosity.)

  ERIN

  Oh, yeah?

  (She starts to open up and engage. Consider blocking or action description to indicate the shift: maybe she opens the door, turns to face him, or stops paying attention to Beth.)

  ED

  He wanted you to know the legal limit for hexavalent chromium is .05 parts per million. And that at the rate you mentioned, .58, it could be responsible for the cancers in that family you asked about. The Irvings.

  (This is the closest the scene gets to exposition. But look at the effort to make it do more. We, and the character, have been anticipating the information. Because she has been distant, he could be relishing the fact that he has piqued her curiosity. But just as in the scene from Once Upon a Time in the West, we will see how a reaction to a beat actually helps to define it.)

  ERIN

  Well, that was nice of him. Isn’t it funny how some people go out of their way to help people and others just fire ’em?

  (Here is the difference between a role that Julia Roberts will take and one she won’t. This scene allows her character to react in her own personal way. She is perceptive and sensitive enough to read Ed’s subtle action. It makes her skin crawl that Ed has come and has tried to have a professional and emotionless conversation. She wants to make it harder for him. She insults him to make it personal. This reaction retroactively gives life to his piece of dialogue. We couldn’t know if his line was good until we get her reaction, but now that we have it, we see that it is. Ed’s line with seemingly boring facts was an attempt to control the situation and keep it a matter-of-fact conversation. He wants to avoid an argument and an apology.)

  ED

  Look, I’m sorry. You were gone. I just assumed you were off having fun.

  (Apology is weak because it is overshadowed by stronger actions: rationalizing, deflecting, and avoiding blame. Also note that earlier she told him he sucked at apologizing.)

  ERIN

  Now, why in the hell would you assume that?

  (Attacking.)

  ED

  I don’t know. Maybe ’cause you look like someone who has a lot of fun.

  (Nice line because it contains two opposite ideas: you are attractive but probably not intelligent and responsible.)

  ERIN

  OH! So by that standard I should assume you never get laid.

  (A clever counterattack that turns his argument on its head. “You’re ugly and full of shit.”)

  Ed takes a beat, copping to the charge. He admits:

  (This line of action description is very important. There has been a heated back-and-forth with some fun and clever repartee, but notice how the action description cues us into a real change in the dynamic.)

  ED

  I’m married.

  (Along with the action description and this line, it’s a strong beat. He relents. He chooses to let her win the little battle and shows humility.)

  (Erin suppresses a smile)

  (The “suppressed smile” is a wordless beat, but it’s significant. Erin is less defensive and is now open to discussing what he came here for.)

  So what’s the story on this thing? This cancer stuff?

  (Respecting her, inviting her opinion, best effort to get the information he came for.)

  ERIN

  You wanna know, you gotta hire me back. I got a lot of bills to pay.

  (Once again, notice the choice that allows a script like this to win an Oscar. Her reaction does not answer the question. The relationships are more important than the facts/exposition. She challenges and demands. She negotiates to get her way, which demonstrates her potential chops as an attorney. If he hires her back, we know he will get the information he needs. Don’t bog down the scene with tedious facts.)

  He glares at her. Realizes he has no choice.

  ED

  Fine.

  (She got an apology and her job back by fighting for and demanding respect. Notice the apology comes at “I’m married” or “fine,” not at “I’m sorry.” If it did happen at “I’m sorry,” that would be on the nose.)

  Ed’s goal superficially was to get information, and Erin’s goal
was to get her job back. He might want her to give him information, but in order to get it, he might have to do something seemingly unrelated such as admit that he is married and doesn’t have a lot of sex. The action of relenting, of giving up the battle and sharing an intimate secret, is what allows them to connect and move forward. She gets respect, her implicit apology, and her job. He gets the information, a new status in their relationship, and help with the case.

  None of the lines from this scene is on the nose. In fact, the gap between what these lines mean out of context and what they mean in service to the scene is evidence of good craft.

  Line: Wrong Ed.

  Subtext: I am not happy to see you.

  Line: … legal limit … hexavalent chromium … The Irvings.

  Subtext: Let’s do this my way, matter-of-factly, without any emotion or my apology.

  Line: Well, that was nice … others just fire ’em.

  Subtext: You’re not getting off the hook that easy.

  Line: I’m sorry.

  Subtext: I am not sorry. Just give me what I want.

  Line: I am married.

  Subtext: Touché. You win, I am sorry.

  Narrowing Down Your Lines

  When you clarify a character’s intention and the exact subtext of an individual beat, you gain creative freedom. How does specificity and narrowness translate into freedom? Because once you know the intended subtext, then anything that can capture it is fair game. “F**k you” can mean “’I love you.” “Sure” can mean “no way.” Laughing in someone’s face can eliminate the need for words altogether and imply: “You are going home alone tonight.”

  But sometimes too much freedom is a bad thing. There might be thousands of lines that capture the subtext of your intended beat. You want your lines to do more than that. Consider all of your possible lines and then narrow them down by evaluating them against some of the key characteristics for good dialogue:

  • Captures the intent/subtext accurately

  • Not on the nose

  • In the character’s voice

  • Cool and surprising

  • Appropriate to the genre

  • Incorporates the setting and details of the world

  Later, we’ll discover how dialogue can align with concept and theme.

  Use these criteria as guidelines to whittle away at the list of potential lines. Consider the beat in Once Upon a Time in the West when Harmonica asks, “You bring a horse for me?” The subtext is to test, prod, or investigate motives. Here are several possible lines that could suggest the intent:

  Are you here to kill me? / Shouldn’t you have one more horse than you do? / Shouldn’t you have one more horse? / A surprise party? You shouldn’t have. / Is this a meet-and-greet or a meet-and-kill? / You fellas got something swirling around your heads, seem a bit nervous. / Am I to deduce from the number of horses that you plan to kill me? / The number of horses you brought… ah, yikes! / Are you going to kill me? / Snaky, you look shaky. / Four of us, three horses, always a bridesmaid. / So who’s walking? / Three of you? I told Frank I travel light. / You bring a horse for me?

  They all capture the subtext or close to it. Let’s ask some questions to help us with the process of elimination.

  Which ones capture the subtext clearly?

  Eliminations: A surprise party? You shouldn’t have. / The number of horses you brought… ah, yikes! / So who’s walking? / Three of you? I told Frank I travel light.

  Which ones avoid being on the nose?

  Eliminations: Are you here to kill me? / Is this a meet-and-greet or a meet-and-kill? / Am I to deduce from the number of horses that you plan to kill me? / Are you going to kill me?

  Which ones are appropriate for the voice of the character and genre?

  (Many of the lines wouldn’t have made it this far, but for this exercise, we will apply this “filter” to all of the original lines.)

  Eliminations: Is this a meet-and-greet or a meet-and-kill? / You fellas got something swirling around your heads, seem a bit nervous. / The number of horses you brought… ah, yikes! / Snaky, you look shaky. / Four of us, three horses, always a bridesmaid. / Three of you? I told Frank I travel light. / Shouldn’t you, you know, have one more horse than you do?

  Which ones are cool and surprising?

  “Snaky, you look shaky” is surprising in a bad way. After the fundamentals are covered, ask yourself the more subjective question: “This line might get the job done, but am I in love with it?” Personally, none of the lines except for the line in the film impresses me.

  Which ones incorporate the location and setting, including the historical time frame?

  Eliminations: Are you here to kill me? / Is this a meet-and-greet or a meet-and-kill? / A surprise party? You shouldn’t have.

  Which ones are succinct?

  Eliminations: Shouldn’t you, you know, have one more horse than you do? / Am I to deduce from the number of horses that you plan to kill me? / You fellas got something swirling around your heads, seem a bit nervous.

  Last Line Standing

  The only line remaining that passes all of these tests is the original line: “You bring a horse for me?”

  Obviously, you won’t put every line of dialogue you write through the same wringer. However, after you repeat this process a few times, you develop a habit, internalize the process, and eventually, it becomes an organic tool of your craft. Very few writers can write great dialogue from the start. Great dialogue writing is a craft to be learned and developed.

  Here are additional questions that you can ask of your dialogue as you write:

  • What is the line’s purpose?

  • Can I express the beat with an action, gesture, or reaction?

  • Can I make it stronger?

  • Can the line be modified to incorporate the setting or location?

  • Can the line play off the previous line? Can it be within a metaphor or train of thought (like the horses in Once Upon a Time in the West)?

  • Can the line be shortened for brevity’s sake?

  • If the line’s intention is clear before it’s end, can it be rewritten so its point becomes clear only at the final word?

  Expand or reorder this list. Tailor it however you want. Although we used these principles to eliminate bad lines, you can also use them to discover and create great lines.

  The Battle of Dialogue

  The battle underneath dialogue is so essential that even monologues in which only one character speaks will incorporate warring perspectives at odds with each other.

  In a memorable scene from Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Gollum/Sméagol (Andy Serkis) wrestles with his warring psyche. Although we see only the one character onscreen, there are clearly two distinct points of view that propel the conversation through sharp twists and turns.

  Scene Analysis:

  Lord of the Rings: Two Towers

  SMÉAGOL

  Master… Master looks after us. Master wouldn’t hurt us.

  GOLLUM

  Master broke his promise.

  SMÉAGOL

  Don’t ask Sméagol. Poor, poor Sméagol.

  GOLLUM

  Master betrayed us! Wicked, tricksy, false. We ought to wring his filthy little neck. [Twists the branch of a tree] Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both. And then we take the precious and we be the master.

  The “schizo” moment plays out with the metaphor of the devil and angel on the character’s shoulder.

  The romantic comedy Mystic Pizza relies on a different sort of devil—the devil’s advocate—in a clever scene that plays with a cliché and then overcomes it. After her boyfriend Bill (Vincent D’Onofrio) breaks up with her, Jojo (Lili Taylor) returns to the restaurant where her friends and family await.

  Instead of allowing the supporting characters to give her what would end up being cliché advice in a been-there-done-that scene, the filmmakers surprise us by allowing her to talk to herself. This brief excerpt shows how the monologue still captu
res a clear-cut battle between two distinct perspectives. This is her continuous dialogue, but I added spaces to delineate the shifts between the two very strong points of view.

  JOJO

  He doesn’t understand. If he really loved me, he’d wait.

  Guess if I really loved him, I’d marry him. Maybe I don’t love Bill.

  But I really do love Bill, though. He understands me so well.

  No. No. You guys are right. I don’t need Bill. I’ve got a lot of things going.

  The last line helps to turn the scene and seems comically referential to her apparent internal struggle.

  Words Can’t Describe

  Speaking is so much a part of our daily lives that using words becomes an afterthought. So it’s only natural that screenwriters gravitate toward dialogue and expressing themselves with their characters’ utterances.

  Although this so-called dialogue is the easiest for writers to write, it’s nowhere near the most effective way to engage a reader or viewer emotionally. In fact, a funny moment in Liar Liar shows how dialogue functions in spite of the actual words.

  When Fletcher Reede (Jim Carrey) is confronted by the defense attorney, Dana (Swoosie Kurtz), about the preposterousness of his demands to settle a divorce, she asks him to explain his argument. Because a curse won’t allow Fletcher to utter a lie, and his entire case is based on falsehood, what follows is almost a full minute of him making a series of silly faces and unintelligible noises.

  Although his response is devoid of actual words, the opposing attorney is in tune with his actions, perceives his antics as an insult, and aggressively retorts with, “So you want to play hardball?” His wordless, flailing gesture does everything dialogue can do. It attacks the other character, incites a response, escalates the tension, and ultimately raises the stakes.

  Although sometimes the best dialogue is none at all, we’ll look next at how you can mine dialogue—even your worst first-draft blathering—and turn it into something better than gold… visuals.

  4

  NON-DIALOGUE: USING VISUALS

  Dramatic dialogue allows characters to express actions as subtext in service of the escalating beats in a scene. However, by the nature of the medium, movies move, so visuals often trump spoken dialogue in effective cinematic storytelling. Even after learning to write good dialogue, screenwriters must wrestle against the tendency to overly rely on it.